Ohmygod, I certainly hope not. Though I have no clue how you would train goldfish to swim in formation.
what!!!!! swimming in formation????
- Thread starter austinpetemo
- Start date
Ohmygod, I certainly hope not. Though I have no clue how you would train goldfish to swim in formation.
I guess the sensitivity on my BS detector is set a bit higher than yours! As a point of logic, the burden of proof is always on one who says something is real / exists, as opposed to someone who says it isn't/ doesn't. It's logically impossible to prove a negative.I do not believe it is fake unless someone can prove it is. It looks genuinely realistic and do not forget some fish are far smarter than we give them credit for. They are in their own right rather intelligent animals and that is just one of nature's wonders. Shame most of us just directly say a particular animal is dumb because it looks like one in his perception. If I am not mistaken, goldfish are part of Japanese culture. They happen to appreciate goldfish much more than other neighboring Asian countries with the possible exception of Thailand and Malaysia where goldfish farms also thrive. I do believe in their passion for this fish, they make up more of their time for their fish. I am also an Asian myself with passion for the fish although admittedly, I just do not train my goldfish to do some tricks that the videos have shown but I still feel attached and sentimental for them.
lol, I feel like I'm about to sound really picky here, but I'm a logic instructor at a university and I can't keep my mouth shut on this one :evil_lol:
This is a common claim about proving negatives that doesn't quite capture the scope of the problem and so can be misleading.
I'll just say that in standard deductive logic it is perfectly possible to prove a negative statement.
As for the issue of burden of proof for existence, some negative statements are also quite provable. For example, "There are no married bachelors" is provably true, due to the contradiction in terms.
There's a pretty good wikipedia article on the issue, in logic and in other fields, if you want more info: http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/"You_Can't_Prove_a_Negative"
I do not believe it is fake unless someone can prove it is. It looks genuinely realistic and do not forget some fish are far smarter than we give them credit for. They are in their own right rather intelligent animals and that is just one of nature's wonders. Shame most of us just directly say a particular animal is dumb because it looks like one in his perception. If I am not mistaken, goldfish are part of Japanese culture. They happen to appreciate goldfish much more than other neighboring Asian countries with the possible exception of Thailand and Malaysia where goldfish farms also thrive. I do believe in their passion for this fish, they make up more of their time for their fish. I am also an Asian myself with passion for the fish although admittedly, I just do not train my goldfish to do some tricks that the videos have shown but I still feel attached and sentimental for them.
wow gee thanks.. lol im half chinese half viet... apparently im borring. but never-the-less i also believe it's fake. its much easier to create a couple ripples and a couple fish rather than train a group of fish
I would be interested in proof on a negative that doesn't contain a contradiction. As a logical person you must know that the only place a contradiction can exist is between the ears of a human being! But I'm sure the link will prove interesting.
This takes the cake. It's official - people on forums will argue about
ANYTHING lmao
:rofl::rofl::rofl:
ANYTHING lmao
:rofl::rofl::rofl:
I think the confusion is just over the difference between how ideas like "negative statement" and "proof" are used in everyday language, and how they're used in formal logic. For example, the standard modus tollens argument form is:
premise: If P, then Q.
premise: not-Q
conclusion: not-P
Or, in other words:
If I'm in Paris, then I'm in France.
I'm not in France.
So, I'm not in Paris.
This is a valid proof, which proves the negative statement not-P, or "I'm not in Paris."
Here is another valid argument, which proves that no goldfish can swim in formation:
If all goldfish are stupid, then no goldfish can swim in formation.
All goldfish are stupid.
So, no goldfish can swim in formation.
Note, this proof is valid but not necessarily true about the world we live in. I don't know if this answers your question, but at least in deductive logic, both of the above proofs are valid, and they both prove negative statements, and their premises contain no contradictions.
I admit it! I totally hijacked this thread with a picky logic issue :devil:
Just as conversely if you are in say, Philadelphia,it is obviously easy to prove that you aren't anywhere else! I tend to think in the real world. Btw just because you're in Paris doesn't prove you're in France, anymore than being in Philadelphia proves you're in Pennsylvania!
